eMTee Posted June 4, 2005 Author Report Posted June 4, 2005 Huh? To the best of my knowledge, average lifespan have been increasing ever since we climbed down from the trees... Does anyone have any legitimate fossil records supporting this theory? Has anyone got any records from 4000 years ago or so to say people lived only 70 years or less? You find now adays in Africa and other 3rd world countries people in their 100s...I know its not a usual thing to see that, but I don't think that they have medicine. Go up to the heights of a mountain with oxygine suport. they have found tribes in such places, imagine people having longer lifespans up there.
Boerseun Posted June 6, 2005 Report Posted June 6, 2005 . Does anyone have any legitimate fossil records supporting this theory? Has anyone got any records from 4000 years ago or so to say people lived only 70 years or less? You find now adays in Africa and other 3rd world countries people in their 100s...I know its not a usual thing to see that, but I don't think that they have medicine. Go up to the heights of a mountain with oxygine suport. they have found tribes in such places, imagine people having longer lifespans up there. Yes. archaeological evidence from Egypt suggest that the kings and queens of the mid East lived to the ripe old age of approximately 35 to 45 years. Keep in mind, also, that being the kings and queens of such a grand old culture as the Egyptians, they were privy to the most advanced medical treatment of the day. Treatment for simple things like headaches usually included such ground-breaking techniques like drilling holes into perfectly good skulls with sharp stones. There is no way anybody could live to 930.
Boerseun Posted June 6, 2005 Report Posted June 6, 2005 BTW - eMTee, your nick isn't a subconscious referral to the contents of your skull? :)
DAK Posted June 6, 2005 Report Posted June 6, 2005 I've heard this is real, and there are claims that some mystics have incredible longevity {Adam would qualify as a mystic}: http://www.alamut.com/past/9906_jun.html My interpretation of most claims of those "living forever" is alluding to the spirit not the body. That said, I don't think 250 is out of the realm of possiblilty... 350? I can't see it... bwtfdik. DAK
bumab Posted June 6, 2005 Report Posted June 6, 2005 Keep in mind, also, that being the kings and queens of such a grand old culture as the Egyptians, they were privy to the most advanced medical treatment of the day. Treatment for simple things like headaches usually included such ground-breaking techniques like drilling holes into perfectly good skulls with sharp stones. There is no way anybody could live to 930. Although wouldn't you expect the poor to live longer then the kings and queens, since they weren't privy to such killer medicine? :) Perhaps all the old folk were poverty stricken, and they had the last laugh.... :)
Fishteacher73 Posted June 6, 2005 Report Posted June 6, 2005 The kings and queens also had the best food, housing, etc. If you are living off of gruel and making bricks in the mud pits, I doubt your health would be as good.
DAK Posted June 6, 2005 Report Posted June 6, 2005 <The kings and queens also had the best food, housing, etc.> Not that I'd support the other side... buuuuuuuut: longevity in the current group surpassing 100 show that farming, not sitting around having shrimp tossed in your mouth, is the way to longevity. I think we'll find the obvious over time in todays boomers also: The explosion in obesity and related diseases will begin to take it's toll and we may actually see a decrease in expected life spans or at least quality of life near the end as society continues it's neglect of the body. You can also see in any human endevour, or indeed in most of life, that CHALLENGE not nice easy circumstance makes one stronger and more vibrant. DAK
Biochemist Posted June 6, 2005 Report Posted June 6, 2005 ..The explosion in obesity and related diseases will begin to take it's toll and we may actually see a decrease in expected life spans or at least quality of life near the end as society continues it's neglect of the body. ..I know I am being a stickler, but this is life expectancy, not life span. Life span for humans is about 95 years, and always has been (as least for the majority of recorded history). Life expectancy is rising, and is essentially rectangularizing the graph of age-at-death versus number of deaths. Genetic tinkering mught alter life span, but nothing has done that yet. Advances in medical science (i.e., disease treatment) and improvements in public health and nutrition elevate life expectancy, but do not affect life span.
eMTee Posted June 6, 2005 Author Report Posted June 6, 2005 DAK. What denomination are you in? I think the best way to test the Bible's dependability on the claims of age, is to test one of the acual people the Bible talks about and claims his/her long age.
bumab Posted June 6, 2005 Report Posted June 6, 2005 Life span is essentally dictated by the length of our telomeres. When those run out (after successive cell division over your lifespan), you start losing coding regions of DNA, and will certainly die soon, no if's and's or but's about it. There are protiens which repair the telomeres, thus creating a situation for eternal life. Those protiens we call cancer! :hyper: Essentially, cancer is eternal, many breast cancer strains being used for research came from a 35 (i think) year old woman who died in the 60's, making those cells 75, and showing no signs of weakening.
Biochemist Posted June 6, 2005 Report Posted June 6, 2005 Life span is essentally dictated by the length of our telomeres....Essentially, cancer is eternal, many breast cancer strains being used for research came from a 35 (i think) year old woman who died in the 60's, making those cells 75, and showing no signs of weakening.That would be Helen Lake. Her HeLa cervical cells (grown in tissue culture) were estimated to outweigh her by an order of magnitude or two. And that was a couple of decades ago. You said breast cancer, though. Might be somebody else. Talk about living forever.
eMTee Posted June 7, 2005 Author Report Posted June 7, 2005 Talking about materialistic. A tree can live forever if it is kept in good health and safe from harm. but I don't think that aplys to any animal or person...has any one lived forever? No. Can and will anyone live forever? No, and that will be the answer to the end of time.
DAK Posted June 7, 2005 Report Posted June 7, 2005 <has any one lived forever? No. Can and will anyone live forever?> Well, the physical body no... of course since energy can't be destoryed, but only changed... it's self evident that our spirits live forever... if they are there. DAK
DAK Posted June 7, 2005 Report Posted June 7, 2005 <I think the best way to test the Bible's dependability on the claims of age, is to test one of the acual people the Bible talks about and claims his/her long age.> I don't think it matters... why root through those old texts to test creationism?? Science will do it eventually... or listen to any number of enlightened masters if you're spiritual. They all say YES of course there is 'the one', god, whatever... creater of all. DAK
eMTee Posted June 7, 2005 Author Report Posted June 7, 2005 or listen to any number of enlightened masters if you're spiritual.Just out of curiosity, what do you believe? what denomination are you in? not to be rude or anything.
Biochemist Posted June 7, 2005 Report Posted June 7, 2005 All- This is one of two threads in the forum that have wandered all over. Please start new threads on new issues or return to the thread topic. Thanks.
Boerseun Posted June 8, 2005 Report Posted June 8, 2005 I agree completely. However, as far as chance and evolution goes - here's the beans: Currently, the best theory we have explaining the different species on Earth, is evolution. It's a theory, as much as anything else in science is theoretical in nature. It will be a theory until somebody else comes with a better description of what we see around us. Just like Relativity is a theory, and somebody like McCutcheon comes along and tries to disprove it. It's unlikely that evolution as a general description will be overthrown, though, seeing as there is a huge amount of evidence supporting that specific view. Unlikely, but not impossible. That's how science works. Evolution is driven by genetic changes, that is either due to UV-rays or similar high-energy impacts on genetic material, or the combining of genetic material through sexual means. Sex in itself was an advantageous evolutionary development, seeing as populations could exchange beneficial genetic material much quicker in times of environmental crises. Pointing to the hiccups in the geological record, where there are sudden surges in numbers of species and then long periods of very few changes, just indicates how natural selection and evolution works. In times of prosperity, with relatively large populations, any beneficial genetic change that came about by chance, is quickly distributed through the population over a number of generations. But due to the number of individuals in a given species in good times, the change is diluted and eventually disappears without changing the species. However, in times of environmental crises, the population comes under pressure, numbers decrease, and any beneficial change spread through a much smaller population, not being diluted as much as when the population was more numerous. Thus we find discrepancies in the geologic record as far as the changes and speed of changes are concerned. Change does not always occur only in time of stress, it could also come about after competing animals have died off, leaving several niches open for exploitation. The Cambrian Explosion is a case in point. Mutations are brought about by chance. Wether those mutations will spread through the species, is up to Natural Selection, and that is the force driving evolution. And no, eMTee, we do not need to invoke any deities in explaining this phenomena. Invoking a deity is a way of saying we do not understand what we are seeing and trying to describe - seeing as asking about the nature of the deity (which would be the logical step following his invocation into any scientific-related matter) is by definition not allowed. And if we are not allowed to ask were the deity of your choice came from, or we can't answer such a question, it's a lot easier just to subtract him/her from the equation.
Recommended Posts